Evidence of meeting #14 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, let's bring our meeting to order. As members know, we had to suspend last time due to disorder.
We will pick up where we left off. We are now resuming debate on the motion.
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on behalf of my colleagues from the three opposition parties. Before beginning, we require a decision on your part with regard to the procedure for the closing of the meeting.
We have been called here to sit today for this 14th meeting. The notice of meeting says that we are to sit from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Consequently, could you provide me with your interpretation, in other words must the meeting imperatively end at 1 p.m. or might it go on for as long as there are speakers wishing to discuss the motion brought forward by Mr. Lukiwski? Would you please share your decision with us?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I don't think there's a decision needed on that. In the past we have left that kind of thing up to the committee for the most part. And as usual, I'll be looking for a motion to adjourn as we approach one o'clock.
Are there any other points?
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
If I understand correctly, we may continue to sit beyond 1 p.m. if there is no motion to adjourn.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the earlier comments by Monsieur Guimond that he's taking his pills, that he's going to be relaxed and attentive, because I think the motion that I introduced last meeting, Chair—and I'll again refresh the committee's memories as to why I brought it forward—is extremely important, inasmuch as there have been allegations, both from Elections Canada and members of the opposition parties, that the Conservative Party in the 2006 election had contravened the Canada Elections Act.
How they have done this, allegedly, has been that they overspent the national advertising cap. The method in which they did that, again according to the allegations, was by these supposed in-and-out advertising schemes, in which local campaigns would run national ads and be reimbursed by the federal party.
I am prepared today, Mr. Chairman, to give many examples of how that practice works, but as I said in the last meeting, the position of the Conservative Party is that, one, we did absolutely nothing wrong, that we did not in fact contravene the Elections Act; and secondly, that the practices used by the Conservative Party in the 2006 election were consistent with and entirely similar to the advertising practices of all other federal parties, at least the major federal parties, those being the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party of Canada.
That was the genesis of my motion, Mr. Chair. To anyone who has more than just a passing knowledge of this committee's work, there is an apparent—I would say very overt—attempt by members of the opposition to examine only the Conservative Party's election practices, their spending practices in the 2006 election, not because they truly want to get to the bottom of this and to examine what happened and whether or not the Conservative Party was in contravention of election laws, but merely to try as best they can to embarrass the government.
We have been the only party, Mr. Chair, as you know, that has consistently stated that we are more than willing to enter into a study or an examination of all of the election spending practices of our party with one condition, and it is that all parties' election books are examined. In fact, Chair, we stated we would go beyond that, not just for the 2006 election, but we would go back to the 2000 and 2004 elections. We would willingly bring out books for examination to this committee as long as the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the New Democratic Party did the same.
We suggested this would be an appropriate course of action, Chair, and that's why I brought this motion forward for two very basic reasons. The overriding reason, of course, Chair, is that we think it's a matter of fairness. If we're going to examine the Conservative books, then we should definitely be in a position where we examine all parties' books, because, Mr. Chairman—and this is my second point—as we contend, not only have we done nothing wrong, but we have engaged in the same practices as opposition parties, and these practices, Chair, are entirely within electoral law. In other words, we are contending, Chair, that not only did we do nothing wrong in the 2006 election with respect to our advertising, but neither did any of the other parties.
I think there may be a slight misconception on behalf of the general public on that issue. There may be some who think we are attempting to examine the other parties' books because we feel they did something illegal. We have never stated that. We have repeatedly stated...and I think you will find, if you examine the records of this committee's testimony, that I have repeatedly stated that my belief is that with respect to the so-called in-and-out advertising scheme, no party did anything wrong. All of the practices followed by opposition parties complied fully with electoral law, as did the practices of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Yet time and time again, when I try to bring this forward--my motion was just the latest in a long list of motions similar to this that we brought forward to this committee--the opposition parties absolutely reject it outright. They refuse to accept this motion.
The only interpretation that I think most people can have of their actions is that they must have something to hide. Otherwise, why are they refusing to allow an examination of their books? If, as they contend, they did absolutely nothing wrong and they complied fully with the law, why are they then so resistant to this examination?
Chair, I would suggest to you that they're doing so for partisan political reasons. They may well know that they did nothing wrong, but they are attempting to create a scandal where no scandal exists. They are attempting, as they have many times in the past with other issues, to create an impression that the Conservatives have broken the law or done something illegal with respect to election spending. We reject that argument outright.
In fact, Chair, one of the reasons we have brought a court action forward is to prove in a court of law that we have done absolutely nothing wrong. We absolutely, vehemently oppose the Elections Canada ruling or interpretation of elections law that only the Conservative Party did something wrong in the 2006 election. That's why we have brought forward a case that will be heard in Federal Court, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Chair, later in this meeting, and perhaps even in subsequent meetings, I'll be bringing examples forward to members of this committee, reading into the record some of the testimony that we will be presenting in Federal Court, and showing members of this committee fully and completely the argument we propose, the argument that exonerates us, that shows without question that the Conservative Party of Canada did absolutely nothing wrong.
As I mentioned in the last meeting and will mention again today, if this committee were truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, they wouldn't need to bring this matter forward at the committee level for examination, because in the court case that will hear our arguments, all of the facts regarding our election spending in the 2006 election will be presented. In fact, I think it very fair to say that if one is to have a complete and fulsome discussion on our advertising practices, a court of law is the best place for that discussion to take place.
To give another example, Chair, we have seen what's happening currently in the Mulroney and Schreiber affair. The ethics committee is having their own examination, yet almost to a person, the members of that committee and the editorial and political columnists agree that the only way to really get to the bottom of this is through the public inquiry, which we all know, of course, the Prime Minister has already called. I would suggest that the same situation is in play here.
There will be a court case heard to determine whether the Conservative Party of Canada broke any election laws. We contend that we did not. That case will be heard before a judge in federal court. That testimony and the results obviously will be made available to not only the Canadian public, but certainly to all members of this committee.
In fact, much of the testimony I will be giving today is coming from an affidavit we have presented that really sets out our legal case. This affidavit is again available to all members of this committee. I'm very surprised that they don't have copies of it with them, because when we start discussing this and I start bringing some of our evidence forward, they could follow along.
Mr. Chair, again I go back to the overriding issue that appears to be at play here, that members of the committee from opposition parties don't seem to really want to get to the bottom of this. They don't really want to have strictly an information-gathering exercise. What they are attempting to do by bringing forward their own motion, put forward by Ms. Redman, is to examine only the Conservatives' advertising practices in 2006.
Their motivation is simply this: to try to get some headlines, to try to embarrass the government, to try to somehow create a perception that it was only the Conservatives who broke electoral law.
We reject that completely and wholly, Chair; therefore, we brought forward our own motion, which said we are more than willing to have an examination and have a study of our election practices—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski; my apologies.
There seems to be a lot of peripheral noise in the room, and I know it's not coming from members at the table. If we could have some of the folks in the background keep the noise down, that would be excellent.
Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Again, I want to make sure that we're quite clear on the motivations of everyone here.
The motivation, clearly, from the opposition side is that they want to have a discussion for media purposes to try to get some headlines, to get some media stories going that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines Tory election spending practices, and they want to have stories coming out that because of the alleged illegal activity of the Conservative Party a standing committee of the House of Commons is examining their books.
In fact, Mr. Chair, they don't use the word “examine” or “study” in the motion put forward by the members opposite, they use the term “investigate”.
Mr. Chair, if that doesn't make apparent what the opposition is up to, I don't think anything else I say could convince you, because it is absolutely, fundamentally, obviously true that the only reason and the only motivation that the opposition members have to bring forward a motion, as they have done, is to try to score some cheap political points. In fact, Mr. Chair, if they don't appreciate the fact that the examination that would take place in a Federal Court case could bring more disclosure and more light to our practices, then I would suggest all they are attempting to do is create some form of kangaroo court at this committee level.
Mr. Chair, I see absolutely no reason why the motion that I presented could not be agreed upon by members of this committee, yet we see total and absolute resistance from the members of this committee with respect to my motion. Again, I would remind members of this committee that only the Conservative Party of Canada is willing to open up our books. We've stated that quite clearly. We'll gladly do it, and we can start the examination today. We can start getting a witness list, at least, compiled today if only the opposition members would say, all right, we have nothing to hide, we'll open up our own books as well. We could start this today. Why aren't we? Quite simply because the opposition doesn't want any examination of their own books.
Mr. Chair, as I stated, I do not believe, based on the information we have compiled, that the opposition parties did anything wrong in the practices they employed in the last election, because they too engaged in what is called the in-and-out advertising—advertising practice, I would suggest, but the opposition tend to call it a scheme. But they did exactly the same thing as we did. Is that illegal? No, it is not.
Let me perhaps, for the record, try to put this into context and try to frame the so-called in-and-out scheme, and how it works, and also, Mr. Chair, try to frame the argument that the opposition members are attempting to make.
Basically, where the dispute is is that Elections Canada has contended that the Conservative Party of Canada overspent the cap that they have on national advertising. In other words, every party during a federal election has a cap on how much it can spend at the national level for advertising, whether it be radio, electronic, television, and that sort of thing. Elections Canada has contended that the Conservative party got around this cap and exceeded this cap by getting local candidates and their local campaigns to run national ads.
They also contend that the national party paid for those ads in a practice known, again, as the in and out, where a local campaign would pay for an ad that they ran—which the opposition claims is national in scope—and then be later reimbursed by the national party for it. So it would have the net effect of running a national ad that wouldn't cost the local campaign anything. In fact, since they paid for the ad and were later reimbursed, they could claim their payment or their invoice as an election expense and actually get a return from it.
Chair, it may appear to many uninformed members of the general public that there's something wrong with that. How can you get reimbursed and still claim it as an expense? Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the way election laws are presented. Whether or not that's the correct method by which Elections Canada should conduct itself is a question for another day. But that is the current system that Elections Canada employed, and it was followed to the letter not only by the Conservative Party but by all other political parties.
Mr. Chair, I would like to deal with those issues as best I can. Wherein, again, the contention is that something was wrong, that the Conservatives did something wrong by overspending their national advertising cap.... In fact, one of the allegations is that local candidates should not be allowed to run national ads, that they should be allowed to run only ads that promote the local candidate, not the national party.
Mr. Chair, let me just read, for the record, the following:
In summary, the records of Elections Canada indicate that the interpretation it apparently applied in refusing to recognize the expenses for some of the regional media buys of Conservative Party candidates in the 2006 Election (due in particular to the so-called “national” content of the advertising) is expressly contrary to the interpretations repeated many times by Elections Canada in its own published interpretation material from at least 1988 through early 2007—when there was an abrupt change published without notice, over a year after the 2006 election.
Let me just deal with that for a second. What this refers to is simply that up until and including the 2006 election, for a period of at least 18 years, Elections Canada in its own material stated that candidates could run advertising campaigns that promoted either their local candidacy or the national party. That was within the parameters and the rules set down by Elections Canada. Yet a year after the 2006 election, Elections Canada came out with interpretations saying local candidates can promote only local candidates. In other words, they can't promote the national party. But that was a year after the 2006 election.
So I would submit, and I would argue, Chair, that if Elections Canada is contending that the Conservative Party of Canada broke elections law, elections rules, by having local candidates promote a national party, they're absolutely wrong, because they changed the rules after the 2006 election.
We were following the letter of the law in the 2006 election, as was each other nationally registered party. The rules were changed after the election, Mr. Chair.
Secondly, Chair, Elections Canada interpretation material also indicates, consistent with the act, that national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns—and that's the second part of the allegation that the Conservatives did something wrong. They're saying that not only did they run a national ad, which therefore contravenes the national cap on advertising, but they received money from the national party to pay for the ad. So somehow that is wrong.
Again, Elections Canada's own interpretive material says that the national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns. So in their own material, Chair, Elections Canada is contradicting itself, and that, frankly, is one of the main arguments we will be proposing when this case is heard in court. Here's an interpretation of Elections Canada that absolutely contravenes its written material, its instructions to candidates and national parties, the rules that we are all to follow.
How can that happen? How can Elections Canada, Chair, summarily and arbitrarily state that the Conservative Party was at fault when in fact by the letter of the elections law, we followed their instructions absolutely completely?
Mr. Chair, that's a question I don't believe anyone at this committee can answer. That's why we have to take this to court and why we have engaged in the action we have.
Again, I go back to one of the arguments I raised earlier. If the opposition parties and the members of this committee were truly interested in finding out whether the Conservative Party broke elections laws, they should let this court case play out. There will be far more examination done in a federal court of law than could ever be done at the committee level—and we all know that here. The way the committee structure is set, there's only a limited amount of time that each member can question witnesses. Yet in a court of law, the judge and the respective lawyers representing Elections Canada and the Conservative Party would be able to engage in a very fulsome argument. That's where the information will become evident, and that's where the information will be made public.
So again, it's apparent to me and to any right-minded Canadian, I think, who's been following this that all the opposition members are trying to do in this committee is to create a scandal where none exists and to do anything within their power to embarrass the government, because, Mr. Chair, we all know that in a minority government situation, there's a distinct possibility of an election being called at any moment.
So what does an opposition party trailing in the polls need to do if they want to force an election, or if they want to engage in an election campaign? They need to have an issue. They need to have something that embarrasses the government. They need to be able to point to something during an election campaign and say, see, that's why you have to get rid of these guys.
Make no mistake, in the 2006 election—and prior to that in the 2004 election, but more so in the 2006 election—one of the main controversies and issues was the sponsorship scandal. That, of course, was a scandal unprecedented in Canadian political history, the largest political scandal in Canadian history, and it had a huge effect in the defeat of the then Liberal government. So the Liberals quite obviously know the effect a scandal can have on an incumbent government, and they are trying, with the help of their opposition colleagues, to create a scandal where none exists, and they're pointing to and considering this to be a scandal. It's absolutely partisan, Chair, and it's the only reason that committee members are adamant in their view that Ms. Redman's motion be voted upon and be followed through.
We, on the other hand, Chair, as I state for the record once again, have said that we have absolutely no problem with our books being examined. If we did, we wouldn't be bringing forward a case. We wouldn't be bringing forward to the Federal Court the very thing the opposition members on this committee have been demanding and asking for.
We'll be completely examining—and allowing a Federal Court judge to examine, Chair—all of our books with respect to the 2006 election. And we've gone even further, at this level: we've stated that we'll go back to 2004, we'll go back to 2000, we'll go back as far as you want—as long as the other parties agree to do the same.
Yet we have had consistent and repeated resistance from the opposition members to do so. Why? It's because this isn't about fairness; this is about partisan politics. That's all this is. The opposition members do not want to have a media story saying that their books are being examined. They only want the media stories and the headlines to say, “Tory books examined—committee investigates”.
Chair, not only is that not fair, but I think it is readily apparent to all observers that this shouldn't be the purpose of this committee. This committee, probably amongst all others, has, I believe, in past years had a well-deserved reputation for being relatively impartial. This committee generally deals with issues that affect all parties in Parliament. It's the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; we talk about procedural matters, about matters that affect all parties. The legislation this committee deals with is mainly on the democratic reform side.
Again, over the past years it has had a very well-deserved reputation as a committee that gets things done, that is impartial in its nature, that does good work to the benefit of all members and all parties. Yet, Chair, we have strayed a long way away from the noble intents and the noble work that this committee has done in years past. We're down to a point now where opposition members are using this committee as a vehicle for their own partisan purposes, to try to embarrass the government, to try to create a scandal where none exists. And, Chair, that's something I'm certainly not prepared to let happen.
If you truly want to have an examination of the Conservative advertising practices, if you want to talk about the in-and-out advertising scheme, let's do so. But let's do so by examining all books.
In fact, Chair, I would even go further. If the in-and-out advertising practice that has been employed by all political parties is something this committee feels to be inappropriate—and frankly, Chair, I would suggest there may be a very good argument to be made there—then let's deal with that. We have all followed the same set of rules, and if we think that practice should stop, let's investigate the matter. Let's talk about that issue.
I'm not suggesting we make any fundamental changes to the Elections Act or to the practices of advertising, but if you want an examination, let's do that; then we can fully discuss that issue. We can examine whether other parties have followed the same practice, which they have, and whether or not it's appropriate. But let's not go down into the political gutter, as the opposition members are attempting to do, and say let's just look at one party.
You know, Chair, I'm looking forward to the court case that is going to be heard in the next few months, because it will give us clear opportunity to tell all members of this House and all members of the Canadian public exactly how we conducted our advertising practices in the 2006 election. We will be able to argue—and effectively argue—how we followed to the letter electoral law.
Part of that argument, Chair, will be comparison between what we have done and what the other parties have done. I think there's a pretty logical case to be made, if we can demonstrate, if we can completely illustrate, that the practices we followed absolutely mirrored the practices of an opposition party. And if the opposition party was not charged with any offence, then how could we be? If the opposition party was not guilty of any election infractions, and we did exactly the same thing, then how could we be found guilty of any election infractions? It doesn't make any sense.
That's the situation that we now find ourselves in with Elections Canada. That is why we have brought forward a legal challenge to the interpretations of Elections Canada. That is why we are fully prepared to have this whole issue investigated in Federal Court.
Interpretation guidelines contained in Elections Canada candidate handbooks, dating back to 1988, are consistent over time on the issue of candidate advertising, until a sudden drastic change in 2007, fully a year after the 2006 election. Until this drastic change, the guidelines were clear that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically and/or the national party. That again goes back to Elections Canada and their interpretation of our advertising.
One of their criticisms, one of their allegations, is that local candidates ran national ads, and that the national party advertising cap was thereby exceeded. They say, they contend, that this is against the law.
Mr. Chairman, in their own guidelines they say that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate or the national party. So how can it be that in their own guidelines they allow this practice to happen, yet they charge that the Conservatives, by following this practice, somehow violated elections law? It doesn't make sense. And everyone around here knows it. We've all been candidates; that's how we got to this place. It is up to the candidate to determine the most effective use of advertising for getting elected.
There's a fairly common rule of thumb in politics that 95% of the success or failure of a local candidate is determined by the success or failure of their national party. In other words, the majority of people, the majority of voters, make their decisions based on the national campaign. Certainly the local candidate has some effect. The longer the time in office, the greater the power of incumbency and the stronger the influence of the local candidate. Generally speaking, though, voters vote for the party. If they think, as voters did in 2006 with the Liberals, that a party is no longer worthy to govern, they have a right, in effect, to fire them. And in 2006, that is what the voters did.
When I was first elected in 2004, I was elected more because the voters in my riding wanted the Conservative Party to represent them than because they wanted to be represented by me as an individual. Primarily, that's why I got elected.
That's why the guidelines that Elections Canada has always followed said that local candidates can determine whether they want to run an ad promoting their own candidacy or promoting the national party. In 2004, when I was first elected, the majority of my advertising promoted the national party, because I felt that this was my best chance of getting elected.
Now, there are some rules that go along with that, and we all know them. We can run a national ad, but we have to identify our own candidacy somewhere in the ad. If it's a print ad, you have to have the name of the candidate and the official agent and authorizations. You need the same thing if you run electronic ads, whether on radio or television. But as long as you do this, it is considered eligible election expenses for the local candidate.
Yet all of a sudden we have this ruling from Elections Canada that because our candidates followed that very basic rule, somehow we were wrong; we, the Conservative Party candidates, erred, and violated somehow Elections Canada law. The net effect was that the ads we ran that might have been national in context and in scope actually should have been paid for and used as national ads, and that in effect exceeded the national advertising cap.
Chair, I would argue to anyone that, as a candidate, it is my sole right to determine what advertising is going to benefit me the most. If they are national ads that benefit me and contribute to my election as a candidate, then I should have the absolute right to run those ads, as long as I authorize them and as long as people know that I was the candidate responsible for paying for those ads. That's the authorization, declaration, and disclosure that I talked about just a few moments ago.
We've all done that. I would suggest that members of this committee, if they were to go back in their political careers, would find that on many occasions they have done exactly the same thing. They have run ads that promoted the national party more than their local candidacy. That was their decision—
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski.
I don't mean to interrupt, but it's 11:45. If in fact we indeed are going to go over our time, it's probably a good idea to order lunch now, because it will take some time to get here.
I certainly don't want to waste taxpayers' dollars, but I need to know—and just through head-nodding, I don't want to get into a discussion—whether or not we should order lunch.
Order lunch, yes or no?
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
We don't know how long Mr. Lukiwski will take.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Well, if it helps the discussion—I hate to see any of my colleagues go hungry—I plan to go for a considerable length of time, for as long as you would allow me.
So I think we should, yes.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much, colleagues.
You have the floor. My apologies.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, that's basically the fundamental difference that we have with Elections Canada. They are making an interpretation that I can absolutely not understand. We have carefully examined all election rules with respect to advertising. We believe we have complied fully with those rules, and yet we can't seem to find any accommodation within Elections Canada.
I can't for the life of me understand why they have made this ruling. I know why the opposition is onside with Elections Canada; as I said before, they're just trying to make a political case out of this. But I can't understand why the ruling came down from Elections Canada.
Mr. Chair, I've said before on many occasions that other parties and other candidates have followed exactly the same practice. Let me give one of many examples that I plan to enter into the record. We'll start with my friends in the New Democratic Party. We have again provided evidence, which will be brought forward in the Federal Court, that other parties and other candidates have engaged in the same advertising practices we have.
I'll start by giving you an example of an NDP member who engaged in this and who is in fact the House leader of the NDP, Ms. Libby Davies.
We have provided evidence in our affidavit that there is an invoice from the national office of the NDP to the official agent for Ms. Davies' campaign for “election period radio advertising paid by the federal party in the amount of $2,612”. This invoice was paid to the NDP national office by Ms. Davies' local campaign by cheque dated May 31, 2006, the same day as Ms. Davies paid over $2,000 for advertising invoiced by the national NDP office. In other words, if you're following along, it would be an eligible election expense: the NDP invoiced $2,000 to Ms. Davies, and she paid the bill.
The same day, the local campaign received a transfer of funds from the NDP national office for $2,600; in other words, virtually the same amount as the invoice—hence the in-and-out. The national campaign office of the NDP invoiced Ms. Davies for $2,600, she paid it, and the same day the national office transferred $2,600 right back to Ms. Davies: the in-and-out scheme.
The in-and-out nature of this transaction, Chair, is specifically set out in an e-mail to the campaign from the NDP national office, which states in part: “The good news is that the federal party will transfer $2,600 to the federal riding association as we agreed to pay for the ads.” Now, “we agreed to pay for the ads”; that is coming from the national office of the New Democratic Party of Canada. What they did was run a national ad, and they paid for it, but there was an exchange of transfers and invoices.
This practice that Ms. Davies followed is exactly the practice we used in many of our campaigns—not all, but many of them—and that practice is what Elections Canada says is in violation of the Elections Act, because it was clearly a national ad. If you take all of these ads in question and all the amounts, they exceeded the national cap.
Chair, the Elections Canada people didn't charge Ms. Davies. As I said before, if Ms. Davies was following exactly the same practice as we were, how can we be charged with a violation of the Elections Act and Ms. Davies not be, particularly when the practice of both Ms. Davies and the Conservative Party is completely consistent with the regulations set down by Elections Canada? They say this is okay.
Now, I know that we see in this case, Chair, Monsieur Godin, the member of the New Democratic Party, shaking his head that, no, it's not exactly the same. It is exactly the same, and this will be proven in court. And I know, Chair, I was referring through you to Mr. Godin. It is exactly the same practice.
Again, I am at a bit of a loss to try to understand, from Elections Canada's perspective, how it can be that, if two candidates did in effect exactly the same thing, followed exactly the same procedures in terms of advertising, only one of those candidates or one of those parties was found to be in violation of elections law. It can't be. They're both in violation or neither is in violation. Yet that's not the situation we have before us. That, Chair, is why we have caused this legal action to go forward, because we fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of Elections Canada.
Chair, I think back to the last meeting, when there was obviously a lot of discussion, to be kind, a lot of commotion—a lot of interruptions, to be more accurate—from the opposition when I was trying to present my case. Yet I recall, Chair, that it was Monsieur Proulx who made a comment—of course it was not through you, but it was just an interruption—a comment I heard quite clearly, when I was trying to make a case, as I am today, that we have done nothing wrong. He said, well, Elections Canada doesn't think so, and that is why we should have this investigation. He said, Elections Canada doesn't think so, and therefore Elections Canada should be the sole arbiter.
Chair, I can only interpret by that—I'm going to make a bit of an extreme case, but consequentially it makes a lot of sense—that if Monsieur Proulx takes that approach, then I suppose Monsieur Proulx is saying we have no need for a judiciary, because if one is to take as gospel an allegation or a charge from an organization, why do we need the court system? If police were to charge an individual, then apparently, according to Monsieur Proulx, we could just take that as the gospel truth. We don't have to challenge that. There's no need for a court system to defend anybody, because according to Monsieur Proulx, if someone makes a charge, you've got to accept it.
We do not. We believe that Elections Canada erred, and erred seriously, in its own interpretation of the act and in its own interpretation of our advertising practices. We look forward, Chair, to being able to prove that in court, to being able to demonstrate to all concerned that the Conservative Party of Canada did absolutely nothing wrong. I have given you but one example of a practice used by a member of the opposition, and it is exactly that practice and the same methodology that was followed by many of our candidates.
As I said just a few moments earlier, Chair, perhaps this issue, this ability of national parties and local campaigns to transfer moneys back and forth, is an issue we should be discussing. Say someone brought that forward and said, “Something doesn't seem right to me. How can you have it that a local candidate gets reimbursed but still is able to claim election expenses? That may not be right.” Well, hey, it's a legitimate argument and a legitimate point.
Let's discuss that, because all parties have followed that same practice, and for good reason, Chair—I must reiterate, for good reason—because it's allowed. It is not against the law. There's absolutely nothing wrong, according to the existing Elections Canada laws, that would prevent a candidate or a national party from engaging in that practice. Yet members opposite in this committee certainly don't see fit to investigate whether or not that practice should be continued or not.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, I would suggest that this committee has done good work before. Perhaps that's an issue that this committee should investigate, and we should advise Elections Canada of our findings. Perhaps we could call forward the head of Elections Canada and his staff to discuss this issue, to see whether or not it was appropriate to find out the genesis of that practice—whether or not it should be continued, whether or not it was a legitimate practice, whether or not it perhaps abused taxpayers' dollars.
All of those questions are questions that perhaps we could be asking, but instead, Chair, what we have here is an attempt by the opposition to say, “Because the Conservatives engaged in the same elections and advertising practices as we have, only they should be singled out for scrutiny.” And I say that's patently unfair.
I also contend, and I suggest to you, Chair, that the opposition members fully know, although they would never admit this publicly and certainly not in front of members of the media, that this is nothing more than a red herring. They are engaging in a partisan tack, a thinly concealed, thinly disguised smear campaign to try to embarrass the government.
Well, it won't work, Chair. It will not work. We have done absolutely nothing that contravenes election law.
Let's see if we can get another example. Let's turn our attention, if we can just for a moment, to a candidate from the Liberal Party of Canada. I have many, but I'll start with this one: the case of Pablo Rodriguez, member of Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
An hon. member
Doesn't he work for the media?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Well, I know Mr. Rodriguez has had his name in the media for a while, in the last month or so, but this is another example of where he might get a little media attention.
I know, Chair, we have Monsieur Godin back talking to members of our media who are covering the proceedings, but I would suggest that...and I see my friend Mr. Naumetz is back there paying rapt attention to this, so I suggest he may want to use this example as well. Again, it's an example of how the Liberal Party and one of their candidates engaged in this in-and-out scheme.
To start off, Mr. Rodriguez receives a fully discounted invoice for services rendered from the electoral district association. In other words, his own EDA, his own riding association, invoices Pablo for $13,322.68 on April 27, 2004. He then claims that as a legitimate election expense. So his EDA invoices him just over thirteen grand and he claims it as an election expense. That occurred on April 27, 2004.
On May 4, the same EDA that invoiced him for $13,322.68 receives a cheque for the same amount from the Liberal Party of Canada. Then the electoral district association transfers the same amount of money back to Mr. Rodriguez.
So there is a three-way transfer here. The EDA invoices Pablo for thirteen grand. He pays it. The national party reimburses the EDA for the thirteen grand, so they're not out any money, and the EDA transfers that to Pablo.
At the end, then, he was able to claim $13,000 and change as an election expense. It didn't cost him anything, and yet he got about a 60% rebate from Elections Canada.
Now, Chair, that's the in-and-out scheme that the Liberals so adamantly state is the problem with the Conservative Party of Canada. They're contending that we followed that in-and-out transfer versus receipt of invoice situation and are at fault, that somehow we've broken electoral law.
Well, Mr. Chair, again I point out that Mr. Rodriguez wasn't charged by Elections Canada for violating any electoral laws or rules, so how can it be that if Mr. Rodriguez did exactly the same thing as some of our candidates, only one of those two candidates was charged? There's a very serious disconnect there.
You cannot have a situation in which, if two people engage in the same act, only one is deemed to be in violation of law. They're either both innocent or they're both guilty. Those are the inconsistencies, the great inconsistencies that we see with the ruling from Elections Canada.
Chair, these examples and many others are going to be fully discussed and examined in the court case. That's why we brought this court case forward. Some of our candidates, Chair, have yet to receive their election returns. They're being held up because of these charges and this pending court case. We want this dealt with expeditiously. We want these charges dealt with as quickly as we possibly can.
Chair, if members of this committee want to discuss this, examine all of the registered parties' methods of advertising during a national campaign, we would welcome that; hence, my motion. Then, if this committee were truly interested, sincerely interested, in getting to the truth, of getting to the bottom of this matter, I am sure that after a careful examination this committee would conclude that no party violated the Elections Act, and perhaps we could file a report to that extent, both with Elections Canada and with Parliament.
Yet, Mr. Chair, members of the opposition don't seem too inclined to follow that suggestion of mine. They don't want, for a minute, a fulsome examination of everyone's election books, and it's quite obvious why. I've given you but two examples of many. We'll have further examples later in my presentation this afternoon from the Bloc, more examples from the NDP, more examples from the Liberals, as to how they engaged in the so-called in-and-out scheme and how they were not charged, neither the individual candidates nor the federal parties, with any violation of the Elections Act by Elections Canada.
Chair, I'm doing what I can right here to accommodate Ms. Redman and her motion. Ms. Redman's motion—supported, I might add, by all opposition members—stated that they wanted to have an investigation of the Conservative Party. They wanted to investigate this in-and-out scheme. In fact, I believe in the motion itself.... Yes, it says “...investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate election campaign expenses”.
Again, the political rhetoric spun by Ms. Redman is suggesting that this in-and-out procedure is somehow restricted to only the Conservative Party of Canada, when clearly it is not. I have given two examples from two different political parties that have engaged in exactly the same practice, Chair, yet they were not charged with any violation whatsoever of electoral rules.
I suggest, Chair, that not only is this patently unfair, but there was an egregious lack of judgment on behalf of the officials of Elections Canada when they first determined to level these charges at the Conservative Party of Canada, because we did nothing wrong. I will repeat and repeat again the fact that we are not suggesting for a moment that any member opposite, or any party that the members opposite represent, did anything wrong. Everyone followed the rules completely. That's why I'm at a complete loss, Chair, to understand why opposition members of this committee do not simply agree to examine with us the election expenses of all political parties. They've stated many times in the past, and I'm sure they will say it in the future, that they didn't violate any elections act. We agree. At least we have agreement on that.
Our point is, Chair, that the way to truly determine if the Conservative Party has violated any act within Elections Canada is simply to do a side-by-side comparison. We'll gladly open our books. We'll take the expenses in question from our various candidates and put them side by side with the election returns of other candidates, whether they be candidates from the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, or the Bloc Québécois. That's how you get to the bottom of this. That's how you do a comparison and determine whether or not a party or a candidate broke the law or perhaps violated the spirit, if not the literal interpretation, of the Elections Act. That's how you come to that determination, Chair. You do so because the investigation takes place in a fulsome and open and transparent process.
That's not what we have here with the motion opposite. The motion, as presented by Ms. Redman and supported by all members of the opposition, only wants to deal with the election spending practices of the Conservative Party. That's not the way to get to the bottom of it, Chair. That is absolutely not the way to get to the bottom of that.
So again I would suggest, Chair, what we are facing here is nothing more than a partisan attempt on behalf of the opposition to try to create a scandal where none exists. But we have many more examples.
Chair, we'll go back now to the New Democratic Party, and I think I'll concentrate for the moment on election claims of sitting members of Parliament, because I think most Canadians are more familiar with them. I could invoke names of candidates who ran for the NDP or the Liberals or the Bloc, but since they weren't successful in their elections, I won't use them as examples. Since we have many MPs who have been elected for several years and are familiar to Canadians, I think we might be able to get the attention of Canadians focused more easily if they can relate an example of election spending to an individual they know.
Let's use the example of Mr. Peter Stoffer of the NDP. The NDP invoiced Mr. Stoffer for $6,118.02, dated December 29, 2005. Then a cheque from the NDP back to Mr. Stoffer for $6,000 was deposited on January 18, 20 days later. The cheque from the candidate to the NDP to pay invoices was dated January 17 and cashed on February 1. That's exhibit 57 in our affidavit to the Federal Court, again an example of this in-and-out transfer scheme, in which a candidate claims as an election expense an invoice for which he is repaid. He's invoiced for $6,000, claims it as an expense, and all of a sudden he's reimbursed the same amount of money from the federal party.
The contention of Elections Canada is that if the net effect is that the federal party paid for the ad, that should be included in their cap. Yet, nowhere in the submission by Elections Canada does it make mention of Mr. Stoffer's case; nor did it make mention of Libby Davies' case; nor did it make mention of the federal NDP exceeding their cap; nor did it make mention of the Liberal Party of Canada exceeding their cap when they engaged in exactly the same practices as we did.
Again, I cannot understand for the life of me how, if two parties engage in the same practice, only one party could be deemed to be in violation. You're either both in violation or you're both not. You can't have one without the other. Yet that is what we have seen from Elections Canada. Again, that is why it is my fervent wish and the wish of our party to have this case heard as quickly as possible.
I don't know when it's going to be heard. Chair, obviously there are many, many cases before the courts. If I had my way, I would certainly have this case dealt with today. I would have the proceedings start today. Unfortunately, people other than me make those decisions as to when individual cases will be held.
Chair, one of the reasons I brought our affidavit to this committee is to outline not only to members of this committee—who I'm sure will ignore it, because again, they're not interested in getting to the truth—but to the members of the media the inconsistent behaviour of Elections Canada in this case, because it doesn't make sense. How can you take two examples, in a side-by-side comparison of two candidates—the amounts may vary, but the methodology is absolutely the same—and you have one candidate deemed to be in violation of elections law and another candidate who followed exactly the same practices deemed to be not in violation? How can that happen? In my view, it can't.
I guess it did. I guess charges were laid, but it doesn't mean they were right. That's why we are engaging in a legal pursuit to overturn the ruling of Elections Canada. That's what we should be doing.
I would humbly suggest, Chair, that if any of the other parties were in this situation, they would do exactly the same thing, as they should, to protect not only their own candidates but their own integrity and reputation, and to prove in a court of law that there was no violation of any sort with respect to our practices in the 2006 election. It is our legal right, and frankly, I believe it's our obligation to bring this case forward.
I honestly don't know where the problem lies in Elections Canada, why they had only singled out the Conservative Party. I'm not going to try to presuppose that; I'm only saying I am confused. I cannot understand why, when it is completely evident that other candidates in other parties engaged in similar practices, only one political party was singled out.
I will let others perhaps try to determine the answer to that question, but all I can say is that I am absolutely confused as to their interpretation. I think it was wrong on a number of different levels. It was wrong because they misinterpreted their own rules, and then they failed to see the inconsistency of their ruling with respect to the actions and practices of other parties.
Let me just go back to one of my very earliest comments here and read again the interpretation guidelines contained in the Elections Canada candidate handbooks, that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically, or it could also promote the national party.
Secondly, let me again read into the record something from Elections Canada, where Elections Canada interpretation material also indicates, consistent with the act, that “national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns”. Okay? National parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns, and the local campaign can determine whether it wants to run a local or national ad.
That's what has happened in all these examples. The national campaign transferred funds to a local campaign, and in Elections Canada's guidelines it says that's okay, you can do that. Then the local campaign ran a national ad with their own candidate's tag line at the bottom, and that's okay, according to Elections Canada guidelines.
We did nothing wrong, the NDP did nothing wrong, the Bloc Québécois did nothing wrong, the Liberal Party did nothing wrong, and it states so in Elections Canada guidelines. Yet we have been somehow singled out, and the suggestion is that we broke the law somehow.
I'm not a judge and I won't be hearing this case, but for the life of me, I would defy anybody at this committee to explain how this interpretation is valid. It simply is not.
That's why I brought forward a motion, because I don't want, and frankly I know our party doesn't want, this charge hanging over our heads. I want it dealt with expeditiously, and I would love to have an examination, a full study by this committee, if only they would do what we are requesting of them to do and to allow their own books to be examined at the same time as ours, to allow us to fully illustrate, as I have been attempting to do here, why the practices that we engaged in were similar and in fact, in some cases, were the exact practices of candidates from opposition parties.
If we were allowed to do that, if we were allowed to simply open up our books and the books of the opposition, put them beside each other, and compare the transactions of individual candidates and individual parties, we would quite clearly see, frankly, in a matter of moments, that we have engaged in similar common practices.
Then the question becomes, quite simply, if we're all doing things in a similar fashion, if we're all engaging in the same practices, we all have to be in the same boat when it comes to the interpretation from Elections Canada. In other words, if Elections Canada ruled that those practices were in violation of electoral law—
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski, I see that the food is here. Unless anybody has a significant objection, we'll suspend for a few minutes to get the food set up.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, let's resume our meeting where we left off.
I know there are still some folks who need to get some sustenance. Please feel free to do that. I invite folks around the room as well to partake. However, if you could just be as quiet as you possibly can, that would be much appreciated.
Mr. Lukiwski, please.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I don't want to have 10 points of order on this, but it is your responsibility as chair to make sure he doesn't tell the story four times. He's up to three times already with the same story. We've heard about it. I think during filibustering he has to change the subject and continue on. It's your responsibility.